TRUST AND DECEPTION IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT: RISKS OF VICTIMIZATION AND PREVENTIVE STRATEGIES

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32782/2522-9656/2026-19-2

Keywords:

trust, deception, digital environment, victimization, prevention, cybersecurity, media literacy, social engineering

Abstract

In the contemporary digital environment, the phenomena of trust and deception acquire particular importance, as they determine the level of user security and susceptibility to various forms of manipulation. Trust is an essential prerequisite for the functioning of social networks, e-commerce, online education, and public digital services. At the same time, trust becomes a vulnerable point actively exploited by fraudsters and manipulators to achieve their goals. Deception in the digital sphere manifests itself through phishing, social engineering, disinformation, manipulations in social media, and psychological pressure aimed at shaping false beliefs and inducing disadvantageous decisions. The article examines psychological mechanisms of trust that explain why users tend to believe even unfamiliar sources of information. A victimological approach makes it possible to identify risk groups and determine factors contributing to victimization in the digital environment. Special attention is paid to the analysis of legal aspects of counteracting deception, including international standards and national legislation in the field of cybersecurity. A set of preventive strategies is proposed, combining legal instruments, educational programs on media literacy, the development of critical thinking, and technical protection tools such as multifactor authentication and early fraud detection systems. The study emphasizes the necessity of an interdisciplinary approach that integrates legal, psychological, and technological dimensions to ensure effective user protection. The conclusions highlight that trust is simultaneously a resource and a risk in the digital environment, while deception serves as a tool that may lead to serious consequences for individuals and society. Preventive strategies should become a priority for state institutions, educational establishments, and individual users.

References

Baier, A. (1986). Trust and antitrust. Ethics, 96(2), 231–260. https://doi.org/10.1086/292745

Rotter, J. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American Psychologist, 35(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.1.1

Schmitt, M., & Flechais, I. (2024). Digital deception: Generative artificial intelligence in social engineering and phishing. Artificial Intelligence Review, 57, Article 324.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-024-10973-2

Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. Chichester: Wiley. 146 с.

Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51–90. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036519

Balakrishnan, V., Ahhmed, U., & Basheer, F. (2025). Personal, environmental and behavioral predictors associated with online fraud victimization among adults. PLOS One, 20(3), Article e0317232. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317232

OECD. (2023). Protecting consumers in the digital age. Paris: OECD Publishing.

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). (2022). Digital identity guidelines (NIST SP 800-63-4 Draft). Gaithersburg: NIST. 76 с.

European Commission. (2022). Digital Services Act (Regulation (EU) 2022/2065). Brussels: EU Publications. 112 с.

European Union. (2016). General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (Regulation (EU) 2016/679). Brussels: EU Publications.

UK Home Office. (2020). Cyber crime strategy. London: Home Office. 72 с.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2021). Combating cyber fraud. Washington, D.C.: DOJ. 64 с.

Lee, S., & Kim, H. (2023). AI-based fraud detection in South Korea. Journal of Cybersecurity, 9(2), 134–150.

INTERPOL. (2023). Global cybercrime strategy. Lyon: INTERPOL Publications. 59 с.

Published

2026-05-19